So, fellow humans, what in game math-ish equation would allow for smaller nations, large nation conquests, and equal sized nation wars reflect reasonable war scores?
War Score Scaling with Nation Size - Debunked
- Thread starter TheMeInTeam
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Indeed even if cores are there, without warscore scaling, you can only release small fractions of the blob as a few high-tax provinces for a released minor could easily reach >80% WS.
Wich begs the question: what's the rationale for it? If I am playing Liège, and I find the Burgundian army has been decimated by the French in a previous war, why shouldn't I be able to grab a bunch of provinces?
How does warscore scaling translate to RL politics/logistics/diplomacy?
If we can answer that question, then we should be one step closer to finding a "new and better" way of doing things.
It doesn't? Warscore is a gameplay element and has no basis whatsoever in reality. Generally speaking the best thing would be to get rid of Warscore as a basis of negotiations (keeping it to determine who's winning) and introduce realistic penalties to conquest or harsh peace deals. Since that's not going to happen the question of scaling has to be looked at from a gameplay perspective. In this regard I feel like big blobs are being protected too much currently, because a lot of mechanics have been added recently that help them survive and bounce back (longer truce, no warscore scaling).
Yeah, this is the crux of the problem overall I think. Everything from coalitions to truces to war score cap to money --> advisors nurtures and protects blobs. Blobs *should* have an advantage, but I don't see why there is an insistence on propping them up further with arbitrary mechanics that have no basis in reality. Buffing an already strong option is questionable in a gameplay sense, and with it also going against history in a history-themed game it seems awkward.
War...war never changes...
until Wiz stealth nerfs it again (and dodges the issue with semantics).
until Wiz stealth nerfs it again (and dodges the issue with semantics).
Hey, Wiz. Nice dodge. Still, the scaling is crap and only sycophants are agreeing with you.
And all those guys calling TMIT wrong, please stop white-knighting for the EUIV development team.
This. Napoleon could have disintegrated Austria after Austerlitz in 1805. Duke Karl's army of 80k stuck between Napoloen and Masséna was all Austria had left, and Tzar Alexander was fleeing back to his country while Prussia was intimidated shootless.
However, had he done that, he would have witnessed larger shitstorm than what he saw in Spain; Warscore in EU4 is arbitrary and if EU5 comes out should be replaced with realistic penalties and political shxxstorms if the victor is too greedy.
The entire Prussian army was defeated entirely a little under a year later losing vast amounts of territory, this is what 100% warscore should look like at the end of a game. Although now that we have over extension warscore is fast becoming an ancient system.
Especially given the consequences of overextension and the inability to accept rebel demands in 1.8 without losing territory.
A better title might have been: "What the Paradox devs DON'T want you to know will SHOCK you!"
